Monday, April 24, 2017

This was the headline in the op-ed page of today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Ousters of Ailes, O'Reilly sad for Fox news, America

Oh, but he is serious, Robert Hayes, and don't call

Sorry.
Anyway. . .

Yes. This Ed Rogers person, whoever he is, is deadly serious that the firings of two vile lecherous sexual abuers of power is somehow bad for America. Let's let him explain:

By Ed RogersWashington Post

What has happened at Fox
News will be bad for America, bad for Republicans and bad for patriotic
conservatism. The network will likely never again achieve the heights it
has in the past, and many of its viewers may drift away and look
elsewhere for their news.

You mean, cranky old white men might end up tuning in to a less dishonest source of news? One with less racism, sexism, homophobia and rank stupidity? But the fear-mongering! Where will they go for the fear-mongering?

Despite his flaws, Roger Ailes was a man who could see the future. He
had a great eye for talent and kept the quality standards at Fox
consistently high.

Yes, you can usually spot an intellectual giant by looking for the guy screaming "SHUT UP!" and "Cut his mic off!" That's the way a true intellectual persuades his opponents. Another good sign: his name on a lot of ghost-written third-rate "history" books.

Despite solid anchors including Bret Baier, Stuart Varney and Neil
Cavuto, I fear Fox News will become sort of a Branson, Mo., version of
the news, where lackluster talent will find a fading home when they
can’t broadcast anywhere else.

Oh, yes. It's amazing that Ailes was able to scoop up Bret Baier, Stuart Varney and Neil fcuking Cavuto! What a coup! I'm sure every network in town was angling to get one of these three!

Honestly, Branson. MO is pretty much a perfect analogy for the current iteration of FOX "News." A place for old white people to reminisce about the "good ol' days" when everyone knew their place and straight white Christian men ruled unchallenged. And it's a safe setting where nothing will ever challenge their pre-existing notions. The only real difference is that Branson, from what I understand, is pleasant. But if you really think someone like Stuart Varney or Neil Cavuto could get a job on any other network, you must be nuts! (Okay, probably CNBC, but that doesn't count.)

Just like Ailes, O’Reilly was a threat to the left – and therefore a
target. He had done more harm to the liberal cause than anyone else.

What "harm" has Billo done to the "liberal cause?" The only harm he's ever done is to the centrist-conservative demo. By weaponizing the far right and pounding it into the brains of every even-slightly-conservative-leaning sucker in America, he has helped turn the Republican Party into an organization that embraces absolute loonies like Bcahmann, Gohmert, Steve King and Donald Trump. He has been a big part of turning the party of TR and Ike into the party of Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent.
So how does this harm liberals? Well, let's look at an example. Midway through his Presidency, Barack Obama was looking to make a "grand bargain" with Boehner and the Republicans. He had eagerly put Sociual security cuts on the table. The only reason, the ONLY REASON, that Social Security remains intact today is that the Tea Party lunatics who now run the party wouldn't take "yes" for an answer. They either were going to get 100 percent of their demands or there would be no deal at all. So there was no deal. And the faction that Bill O'Reilly helped to create inadvertantly saved Social Security.
For a more recent example, jusdt look at the recent "trumpcare" debacle. Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Oval Office, but they couldn't manage to repeal or replace the ACA. Why? Because the Bill-O'Reilly wing of the party were furious that it didn't go far enough. They were not going to vot for ANY bill that might help a single poor person get medical care. And so the Billo wing ended up saving the ACA. So, maybe you could explain how Bill O'Reilly has "harmed" the "liberal cause?"

The double standard, being what it is against Republicans, is on full
display. The voices that were silent about the serial abuser Bill
Clinton and his enabler, Hillary Clinton, have been protected and even
celebrated while Ailes and O’Reilly were hounded out of their jobs.

Oh, right. Conservative writers don't bother backing up their claims. They just state something that is demonstrably false, assume their readers will accept it as Gospel, and move right on to playing the victim.

But the point here is not about these two men, it is about
the voice and role Fox News has played over the years. The network was
an unstoppable and irreplaceable force. With Ailes as the conductor
of a fair and balanced symphony orchestra and O’Reilly in the first
chair, Fox News offered quality, top-rated programming year after year.
Each night, O’Reilly produced commentary that offered clear thinking,
compelling logic and exposed the abuses of liberals better than anyone
else.

Really? Fair and Balanced? You're really trotting that out? That's just s dumb slogan, it has no basis in fact. It's like Taco Bell claiming to serve Mexican food, or CBS claiming to air "comedies." And if you're going to pretend that FOX is "fair and balanced," you might not want to also say that it is led by a man that you just said " keep[s] the conservative perspective honest and, at times, dominant."

No one will truly be able to replace Ailes or O’Reilly – but not because
they won’t try. Together, these men offered unique perspectives,
talents and capabilities. They anchored Fox News. Without Ailes and
O’Reilly, Fox News is destined to become something much different from
what it once was.

Yeah, just like how when Hostess bakery went out of business, there was so much less healthy snacks available!

Ed Rogers writes for the Washington Post.

Much to their eternal shame.

I mean, seriously, WaPo, this is what you want in your paper? A dishonest promo for a dishonest network? A network which, I'll wager, trashes your paper on a regular basis? And do you really want to be the paper known for defending sexual harrassers?